long resident in Persia ; and be must have had some special facilities (besides access to the Persian archives) for obtaining exact information on the secret and delicate matters which form an essential part of his history. Probably he was a younger contemporary of Mordecai's, and an intimate acquaintance-one who had watched his career, who admired his talents and his character, and was anxious to preserve them from oblivion. His work was written primarily for the Jews of Persia; but it naturally passed from them to the other " Jews of the Dispersion," and finally reached Jerusalem, where it was adopted into the Canon. § 4. PECULIARITIES. The most n,otable and the most noted peculiarity of the Book of Esther is the entire absence from it of the name of God. None of the titles in use among the Jews to. express the Supreme Being-neither Elohim, nor Jehovah, nor Shaddai, nor Adonai, nor even any periphrasis for the name---occurs in it from first to last. The idea of God is there ; but by a reticence, of which we have no other example in Scripture (for even the shortest psalm has a mention of God at least once), the Divine name is kept back, unuttered by the speakers, unwritten by the author, merged in the profoundest silence, totally absent from the whole ten chapters. It has been suggested that this absence arose from that increasing scruple against using the Divine name which characterised the period between Malachi and John the Baptist, which led to the substitution of "Adonai" for "Jehovah..'' in the reading of the Scriptures, and to the absolute prohibition of the pronunciation of the "Tetragramma.ton " by any one but the high priest, or by him excepting in a whisper.* But the date of 'Esther' is too early for this explanation to merit acceptance. Rather _we must attribute the reticence either to an "instincttve adoption of the fashion of the Persian court," -t or to a shrinking from irreverence on the part of the writer, who may have viewed it as irreverent to introduce the name of God without necessity into a history which was addressed as much to Persians as to Jews, and was not so much intended for sacred history as for secular. "Nee Deus intersit, nisi clignus vindice nodus inciderit" is a wholesome rule; and as the deliverance of the Jews from Haman's machinations was brought about by secondary cause~ with- out overt Divine interference, there was no necessity to bring the First Cause upon the scene at all Whether the " Book " was to be accepted into the Canon, notwithstanding the absence of the Divine name, was a point which the Jewish Church no doubt seriously considered, and which we may believe to have been determined, under Divine guidance, by Malachi. The Book was received, and we can see that it was well that it was received. "It is expedient for us that there should be one Book which omits the name of God altogether, to prevent us from attaching to the mere name a reverence which belongs only to the reality. t It is well that God should have vindicated as his own a • Stanley,' Lectures on the Jewish Church,' Third Series, p. 179. t ibid, p. 180. ! [bid. INTRODUCTION TO
mere piece of honest, plain, straightforward, eecular history, written by e. God- fearing person, and the chief actors in which were God-fee.ring persons, that eo we may feel that history itself is God's, and a true record of it a godly work-a work which he will accept and approve, whether or no he be explicitly referred to in it, whether or no it be me.de e. vehicle of direct religious instruction, whether or no the characters held up for approval have the sacred name upon their lips, if only they have it in their hearts. For, be it remarked, not merely is the name of God absent from ' Esther,' but direct religious teaching is also wholly absent from it. Even prayer is not mentioned ; Mordecai and Esther fast (eh. iv. I, 16), but it is not said that they pray. They exhibit a genuine patriotism, a lofty unselfishness, a readiness to dare e.11 for the right; but the source of their moral strength is not made apparent. When Mordecai says to Esther, " If thou boldest thy peace, then shall there enlargement and deliver- ance arise to the Jews from another place; but thou and thy father's house shall be destroyed : and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this 1 " he approaches close to the doctrines of God's special providence in the apparent accidents of life, of the special promises of con- tinuance made to the Jewish people, and of the visitation of sin not only upon the sinner, but upon the family of the sinner-he does not, however, enunciate any one of them. When Esther consents to risk her life, with the touching words, "lf I perish, I perish" ( eh. iv. 16); and again when she says, "How can I endure to see the evil that shall come upon my people 1 or how can I endure to see the destruction of my kindred 1" (eh. viii. 6), she speaks as only a religiously-minded person would be likely to speak; but she withholds all mention of the motives which actuate her, and leaves them to be conjectured. The absence of any mention of Palestine, or Jerusalem, or the temple, or the law,• is also a noticeable feature of the Book, though one of far less difficulty and far less practical moment than the peculiarity which we have been consider- ing. The writer belongs to the Jews of the Dispersion-his special interest is with them ; and though warmly attached to his nation, he is devoid of that affection for localities which characterised the Jews generally. He is, moreover, so far cosmopolitan as to shrink from utterances which would stamp him as a provincial, and be either unintelligible to the Persians, for whom he certainly writes almost as much as for the Jews, or even displeasing to them. The facts of his narrative do not call for any mention of peculiar Jewish institutions (excepting that of the Feast of Purim), and he is thus able to avoid obtruding on his Persian readers peculiarities with which they would have no sympathy, o~ practices to which they would have felt objection. There is nothing that can well be called peculiar in the style of ' Esther,' or in the form of the nar- rati ve. Both are characterised by simplicity. The narrative is very inartificial, • Except the remark of Haman, that the J ewe have " lawa diverse from all other people n (ob. iii. 8). THE DOOK OF ESTHER. yjj